Legal

Search

Subscribe via Email

Leave This Blank:Leave This Blank Too:Do Not Change This:

Your email:

December 04, 2008

Promising video research from Adobe

"Dan Goldman is an old friend of mine from ILM," writes FX pro Stu Maschwitz. "He now works for Adobe’s top-secret G*d Dammit Put This In A Product Now division." Check out Dan’s Interactive Video Object Manipulation demo to see if you agree. (Now that Photoshop Extended can work with video, it’s fun to imagine the possibilities. No promises, of course.)

Comments

Check out Dan’s Interactive Video Object Manipulation demo to see if you agree

Definitely. Hopefully the folks behind this are also working at this same division.

bonjour — 2:11 AM on December 05, 2008

“Now that Photoshop Extended can work with video, it’s fun to imagine the possibilities. No promises, of course.”
Wow talk about BLOAT.
Heres an idea… leave the video editing to the video editing apps.

rich — 11:58 AM on December 05, 2008

This makes sense in After Effects.

Jim Monaco — 12:00 PM on December 09, 2008

Hey…what’s with the negative comments, people? This kind of technology would be amazing! As far as “makes sense in After Effects” is concerned, not really. It could make nice motion tracking paths, but that’s really just the tip of the iceberg. Photomanipulation techniques on video are traditionally done in Photoshop, and this kind of integration (manipulation based on motion) is just the kind of thing that could help us all out. We’ve got painting on video layers, but we need this kind of analysis to really draw on a video with ease.
As for bloat…I’m getting a little tired of hearing about bloat, and I don’t even work for Adobe. If Photoshop Extended is bloated, then you’re making a poor buying decision. Adobe has had the good sense to make Lightroom (at 1 fifth the cost) for the Photographers who want the Adobe experience with photo management and editing but don’t want to pay for (or have to load) all of the creativity features. They’ve also got a standard version of Photoshop (for a few hundred off) that offers the photomanipulation package without all of the “extended” (aka other forms of visual media than still image) options.
If you’re buying the full-blown package, shouldn’t you get what you pay for? A tool that recognizes that its usefulness spans many use cases? If you are willing to purchase the capabilities to address the highest end of media production, it *should* be safe to assume that you have a few gigs of ram and a big hard drive. If you do, the software loads quickly and runs smoothly. No bloat; you get what you asked and paid for.
Let’s appreciate Adobe’s research into the cutting edge, not find ways to shoot it down before it’s out of the box. Just imagine what this kind of image analysis could do for masking, depth-based filters, specific color correction, live-motion animation….and things I *can’t* imagine.

rich — 10:40 AM on December 10, 2008

Adobe’s research implementation been good as a beginning. But “photomanipulation” techniques on video and film are NOT traditionally done in Photoshop, except for backgrounds or by certain few Photoshop painting experts. Photoshop is still not close to the long dead Commotion (even in adjusting brush size and feather), or the still alive BodyPaint 3D.
It just seems like some want to reinvent the wheel using precious development dollars. There are plenty of needs in 3D and in even in basic color UI, which is instead shunted off piecemeal to 3rd party Flash panels. It’s not that Flash panels aren’t a good idea, but even other Adobe apps have innovations that Photoshop should lead development into further.
Even a “Flash Elements” (with aspects of Adobe Thermo and Apple’s Keynote in 3D) is needed more than further money sunk into developing video in PS. And a vector /pixel rapprochement in general seems overdue. That seems realistic rather than negative.